Finding Sanctuary: Planning Marine Conservation Zones in the south-west

[maxi77]

I think that the confrontational tone adopted by Tim and others serves only to alienate the pleasure boating community from the rest of the beachgoing wooly minded bunnyhugging public, who are then easy prey for the more extreme members of these groups.

No-one on here can be against marine conservation per se - we are talking about the preservaton of the environment we love to spend time in. Similarly, no-one who has been going down to the sea - in boats or just to the beach - for the last thirty years can fail to be aware of the degradation of the seashore environment over that time.

Boaters are an easily visible target, and we are not completely white - our activities do have environmental consequences. IMO these consequences are easily contained/minimised and are generally far outweighed by the social good that comes from them. I believe that because I believe that humans are also part of nature and that we have at least as many rights as animals.

Most of the conservation groups pay at least lip service to involving all marine users. It is up to us to exploit this to attend meetings, to speak rationally, to form our own public-friendly PR groups and to ally with other marine interest groups such as fishermen and other commercial users of the sea. Failure to engage, public bluster and mouthing off agressively plays straight into the hands of the eco-extremists who value a small piece of moss more highly than the wellbeing of their fellow men.

Refusing to engage rationally with the process by making controversial statements like Mr. Bartlett will get us precisely nowhere - it is playing straight into the hands of the likes of the SHT who sadly seem to be more media-savvy than the yachting community. One poster has already been banned from here as a result of the Studland thread, which will inevitably be seen as a 'victory' by the devious Mr. Trewhella.

So Tim, that is why I was somewhat scathing. I was not unaware of the thinking behind your remark, but it is unlikely to do the boating cause a lot of good as ST will no doubt have cut and pasted it ready to present whenever some poor yachtie actually does try to approach them reasonably.

- W

If you had read some of my earlier posts you would have seen that I have been from the start advocating that boaters of all types get more involved. Yes many of us are keen on the principles of conservation and should be involved but this bunch seem to have manged to get themselves all set up and running without even by what I have seen trying to involve local boaters of any type. Now as I do not live anywhere covered by one of these tree hugging schemes it is not for me to get involved directly, though in the past I did serve time on my local yacht clubs association committee and saw how commited yachties cam make a difference. Now if it takes some over stated comments to get some people up and doing something that is good in my book.

 

[Searush]

No-one on here can be against marine conservation per se - we are talking about the preservaton of the environment we love to spend time in. Similarly, no-one who has been going down to the sea - in boats or just to the beach - for the last thirty years can fail to be aware of the degradation of the seashore environment over that time.

Objection Milord! Webbie has definitely got that wrong. I can remember the shoreline of my youth when sea going vessels routinely discharged their garbage & washed out their tanks in the Mersey. I can also remember the consequences of teh raw sewage pumped in on every ebb tide that simply came back in on the next. I can remember the "Mersey Goldfish" the "Balloons" the black globules of oil & the half grapefruit skins that were spread up and down the beach HW mark twice every day.

Those activities have been banned, thank Heavens, and the beaches may not be crystal clear, but they are definitely MUCH cleaner than they used to be. There is still a long way to go, but I suspect that Yotties contribute little to the mess that we still have today. ALL the yotties I meet bring ALL their rubbish back ashore to bins & recycling facilities - no-one even buries it on the beach any more (as used to be recommended by cruising writers).

A lot of what ends up on the tideline where I am is fishing boat gear - despite the fact that there are so few left, they seem to have a disproportionate impact on the rubbish in our waters. I accept that some of it is lost (at great cost to the fishermen) but I am sure much of it is simply discarded as waste without any concern about the risks to other sea users or wildlife.

 

[webcraft]

Objection Milord! Webbie has definitely got that wrong.

There's less sewage but a helluva lot more plastic and - based purely on personal observations - less life in the intertidal zone as well. Hopefully I am wrong and just a shortsighted git, but turning up stones in rock pools used to result in a lot more life than is found nowadays in the same spots. Lack of sewage is one thing, dwindling eco-diversity is another.

- W

 

[timbartlett]

We HAVE to engage rationally with groups like Finding Sanctuary. Sticking our fingers in our ears and singing 'la la la' is not going to make them go away, and they have the public ear.

Finding Sanctuary is not a pressure group: it is a quango, with local and national government support. It doesn't really matter you agree with it's policies or not: it will go ahead anyway because it's what it was set up to do. But it will be easier to put a positive "spin" on its activities if it can con lots of us into believing that we are all "stakeholders".

When you suggest "engaging with them" I presume you don't mean in the Nelsonian sense of "engage the enemy more closely"? If you mean turn up to their meetings and be on their mailing list, then you will simply be giving their so-called "consultation" a spurious veneer of credibility, even if you disagree with everything they do!.

A far more productive move, I suggest, would be to resign from any organisation such as the National Trust or the RSPB (the Royal Society for the Prevention of Boating?), that supports them, with an explanation of why.

 

[webcraft]

.
From their website:

A 2007 RYA survey showed that 4 million adults participate in watersports in the UK, and 42% of those were from the South West and Wales. More people own boats in our region than any other part of the UK.

However, there are some important differences between these groups in terms of their potential impact on marine wildlife and habitats including the level of noise they generate and where their activities take place. Generally the potential for conflict with MPAs is quite low and there could be some benefits too; better planning and use of zoning within MPAs could potentially reduce existing conflicts of use that occur between some watersports enthusiasts.

Sounds fairly positive to me. Sounds like Finding Sanctuary might actually be able to differentiate between rowdy jetskiers and sensible yachties. However, animosity and an outright refusal to engage on any level will soon change that.

And if every yachtsman in the UK who is a member of the RSPB left it would be an utterly futile gesture that would not make the slightest dent in their membership.

- W

 

[glashen]

.
From their website:

Sounds fairly positive to me. Sounds like Finding Sanctuary might actually be able to differentiate between rowdy jetskiers and sensible yachties. However, animosity and an outright refusal to engage on any level will soon change that.

And if every yachtsman in the UK who is a member of the RSPB left it would be an utterly futile gesture that would not make the slightest dent in their membership.

- W

I think you're right, sadly the approach of particularly Steve Trewhella has put a lot of backs up, looking at the Studland preservation society blog, there is a post from Finding Sanctuary disassociating them from the previous postings which include those from the Seahorse Trust. Further it would IMHO be a big mistake to lump all conservationists together. For instance although many on here point to the Dorset Wildlife Trust and the connection with Steve, but quoting from the DWT website,

"What would happen if the study shows that anchoring is damaging the seagrass and having a negative impact on the seahorses?

Until the study is complete we do not know what the outcome will be. It will be the decision of the statutory authorities such as Natural England and the seabed owner, The Crown Estate as to how best to manage the area in a sustainable way."

Which is an approach to the problem I for one us can support and seems at odds with Steve and Neil.

I also take your point regarding resigning from organizations, I have been a member of DWT for about 17 years and I have been carefully watching their statements on the issue. I will certainly let them know my opinions if their actions cannot be justified by the evidence but so far I cannot see that that is the case. Just flouncing off is unlikely to have any impact.

 

[Whiskey Bravo]

This is getting very, very, very boring now.

Once these conservationists get a bee in their bonnet they'll try to protect it, just as the 'climate change' supporters do, even resorting to falsifying data etc.

Simple solution:- pair of concrete wellies for the conservationists, stick them in Studland to play with the seahorses underwater, mooring rope round their necks for the yachties and as a gesture of reasonableness let them have a breathing tube. That way everybody is where they want to be and all's well. After a few years they'll all disappear up their own backsides anyway or find another 'cause' to pursue.

 

[strakeryrius]

Has anybody actually managed to get the much-vaunted Interactive Map on the Finding sanctuary site to work?

I registered and went back to add info that they said I could, but found that you can't zoom in to any workable level - just end up with the "loading map data" icon going round and around forever with nothing else happening, and when you try to add levels of detail the whole thing just freezes. Very frustrating.

 

[webcraft]

This is getting very, very, very boring now.

Once these conservationists get a bee in their bonnet they'll try to protect it, just as the 'climate change' supporters do, even resorting to falsifying data etc.

Simple solution:- pair of concrete wellies for the conservationists, stick them in Studland to play with the seahorses underwater, mooring rope round their necks for the yachties and as a gesture of reasonableness let them have a breathing tube. That way everybody is where they want to be and all's well. After a few years they'll all disappear up their own backsides anyway or find another 'cause' to pursue.

What a very reasonable post, you obviously have much to contribute to this discussion

- W

 

[Twister_Ken]

Has anybody actually managed to get the much-vaunted Interactive Map on the Finding sanctuary site to work?

I registered and went back to add info that they said I could, but found that you can't zoom in to any workable level - just end up with the "loading map data" icon going round and around forever with nothing else happening, and when you try to add levels of detail the whole thing just freezes. Very frustrating.

Worked for me but I had to wait two or three days for my registration to be actioned.

 

[jac]

Has anybody actually managed to get the much-vaunted Interactive Map on the Finding sanctuary site to work?

I registered and went back to add info that they said I could, but found that you can't zoom in to any workable level - just end up with the "loading map data" icon going round and around forever with nothing else happening, and when you try to add levels of detail the whole thing just freezes. Very frustrating.

I have exactly the same problem.

the other issue that I noticed is that whilst there are "layers" for human use or stakeholder mapping strangely enough there are no options for leisure craft within those. Either we're not Human, we don't use it or we're not stakeholders.

Now if I were of a suspicious mind I would assume that this was becase FS didn't want to record the fact that leisure sailors used a site that the seahorses have also used for decades as that might present a challenge when it comes to banning leisure sailors.

This is just the latest example of a biased stakeholder engagement piece -

We have the incestuous nature of Finding Sanctuary with various parts of the conservation mafia, including the seahorse trust and various individuals who may not be named

We have the fact that there are no meetings / drop ins for those who may live outside the area but who use the seas there ( i.e. leisure boaters)

The fact that tourists will generally not be there over the winter when all the consultation is supposedly happening.

Given the bias above is it not time for leisure sailors to start a fund rising effort as surely we must accept that there is limited chance of a fair outcome. We will then need some legal firepower to challenge the decision

 

[timbartlett]

Sounds fairly positive to me. Sounds like Finding Sanctuary might actually be able to differentiate between rowdy jetskiers and sensible yachties.

Well, they might not know (or care) what the difference is between them, but they can certainly recognise an opportunity to divide and conquer. And has it ever struck you that jetskis don't usually anchor: yachts do. So it could be that you find the "sensible yachties" being banned first!

However, animosity and an outright refusal to engage on any level will soon change that.

I'm not suggesting that we should refuse to engage. Just that we should "engage" in the nelsonian sense (of "engage the enemy more closely")

And if every yachtsman in the UK who is a member of the RSPB left it would be an utterly futile gesture that would not make the slightest dent in their membership.

So handing over your details to be counted as one of their supporters does no harm, but withholding funds does no good?

 

[maxi77]

There's less sewage but a helluva lot more plastic and - based purely on personal observations - less life in the intertidal zone as well. Hopefully I am wrong and just a shortsighted git, but turning up stones in rock pools used to result in a lot more life than is found nowadays in the same spots. Lack of sewage is one thing, dwindling eco-diversity is another.

- W

Perhaps so, we do use a lot more plastic these days, but equally I echo Searushes comments on how much better the water conditions are today compared to what they were. As far ast the plastic is concerned do you honestly think banning boaters from entering or anchoring in any bit of the sea will change the present problem with plastic in any significant way. Equally do you know why there is an aparent reduction in the shoreline sealife, and have you any evidence that restricting boating will change this in any way at all.

This is the problem with tree hugging, to many restrictions dreampt up with little or no real science to back them up. Just think of the sea horses at Studland, use of Studland bay is increasing and so are the seahorse, so the tree huggers demand that the boaters are excluded to protect the seahorses.

 

[glashen]

Perhaps

This is the problem with tree hugging, to many restrictions dreampt up with little or no real science to back them up. Just think of the sea horses at Studland, use of Studland bay is increasing and so are the seahorse, so the tree huggers demand that the boaters are excluded to protect the seahorses.

But what are you basing those two statements on, there is certainly to my knowledge no peer reviewed research to back either statement, that is what some of us want to see, so if any restrictions are necessary they are based on facts not assumptions.

 

[KristiferColumbus]

Finding Sanctuary is not a pressure group: it is a quango, with local and national government support. It doesn't really matter you agree with it's policies or not: it will go ahead anyway because it's what it was set up to do. But it will be easier to put a positive "spin" on its activities if it can con lots of us into believing that we are all "stakeholders".

When you suggest "engaging with them" I presume you don't mean in the Nelsonian sense of "engage the enemy more closely"? If you mean turn up to their meetings and be on their mailing list, then you will simply be giving their so-called "consultation" a spurious veneer of credibility, even if you disagree with everything they do!.

I could'nt agree more.I have just gone through the "Bus Rapid Transport Scheme" fiasco round here (& for those not in the know that is the project to turn a disused railway track between Fareham & Gosport into a bus lane) & I have to say that 'consultation' was conspicuous by it's absence.........the whole bloody thing is a disgrace!
"Finding Sanctuary" is exactly the same kind of cynical marketing ploy as far as I can see.

 

[KristiferColumbus]

But what are you basing those two statements on, there is certainly to my knowledge no peer reviewed research to back either statement, that is what some of us want to see, so if any restrictions are necessary they are based on facts not assumptions.

glashen there have been seahorses reported all over the place why are we even considering all this fictitious nonsense?

 

[ARCO7]

Finding sanctuary-white wash

Could n't agree more ! The whole scheme seems to be very SECRET SQUIRREL STUFF to me.Have the public had any junk mail through their doors on this infringement of their LIBERTIES ? -NO ,Has there been wide spread media coverage and an Advertising Campaign ? - No . It appears the powers to be want the whole thing to go through on FAST TRACK without any fuss.
But this is supposed to be a BRITISH DEMOCRACY so INFORM the PEOPLE and Let them have their SAY..!!! It is a total SHAMBLES and I am doing jerky movements with DISS CUSTARD !

 

[glashen]

glashen there have been seahorses reported all over the place why are we even considering all this fictitious nonsense?

How can we ask that restrictions be properly evidence based if we do not apply the same standards to the evidence we produce or use in support of our case. Further if we simply refuse to accept there is an argument, we allow those such as the Seahorse Trust a freehand to present a biased unsupported case, I feel that would be a very dangerous route to take, we must keep engaging and insist on proper evidence.

On the seahorse issue there is a danger in focusing on the fact they are widespread, it is the eelgrass that SHT claim to be in danger, if they could prove this they could then point to other species the unique habitat, the danger of erosion and the more general environment with the seahorse as an emblem of their cause.

 

[KristiferColumbus]

How can we ask that restrictions be properly evidence based if we do not apply the same standards to the evidence we produce or use in support of our case. Further if we simply refuse to accept there is an argument, we allow those such as the Seahorse Trust a freehand to present a biased unsupported case, I feel that would be a very dangerous route to take, we must keep engaging and insist on proper evidence.

On the seahorse issue there is a danger in focusing on the fact they are widespread, it is the eelgrass that SHT claim to be in danger, if they could prove this they could then point to other species the unique habitat, the danger of erosion and the more general environment with the seahorse as an emblem of their cause.

Good luck to you glashen you have obviously got more patience than I have got.
If somebody has got a picture of eel grass I shall look out for it on my travels this summer.
Any divers or conservationists would do well to keep out of my way from now on.

 

[timbartlett]

As a matter of idle curiosity, I thought I'd look up "Finding Sanctuary"s ybw forum profile.
And on his/her profile page I found:-

Finding Sanctuary has not made any friends yet

D)
Well, it amused me, anyway!